The probability of failure

[donatello b]

depends on how one defines/looks at success ?

a friend i known since 1980 who has been making films since 1975 ... he hasn't made back any cost on any of them, none has been picked up , he's been homeless for the past 7-8 years , whatever $$ he makes from doing hard manual labor he put's into his projects (just about all projects have been shot & edited on 16mm film) ...his current Doc project was shot 16mm , it was transferred to tape last Feb ... he's learning FCP ... he's hoping to get a 60min rough edit by end of October and whole project finished by end of year ... he enters film festivals and has won some awards ... he considers himself a successful filmmaker ...

 

[Joel Kaye]

depends on how one defines/looks at success ?

a friend i known since 1980 who has been making films since 1975 ... he hasn't made back any cost on any of them, none has been picked up , he's been homeless for the past 7-8 years , whatever $$ he makes from doing hard manual labor he put's into his projects

You should do a doc on him. Maybe expand it to the Hollywood Dream. It'll probably be the most successful thing he's been involved with.

Have there been docs on all the actors that have their dreams dashed in Hollywood? That would be pretty fascinating.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

So the odds that I will succeed financially with my own independent movie are very very low. What is everyone else thinking about their probability of success? Am I the only pessimist in the queue?

I once asked a ROCKSTAR this question - "with so many bands, did you ever worry about failure? Did you ever think you might not MAKE IT?"

and he said "I just knew I had to ROCK"

Financially Successful Filmmakers, Rockstars, Jim Jannard and the entire RED TEAM defy PROBABILITY and ODDS -

No RISK ... no REWARD.

 

[Priyesh P.]

That idea makes a lot people nervous... most people can't conceive of very many people being talented enough to do that. We'll see. Some types of movies just need a lot of resources - but if the market won't support those budgets perhaps we will just stop making 'em.

I think the main issue with overblown budgets is, that the producers have to make a movie that is as broadly appealing as possible. Stories are getting more and more predictable, characters are of the usual 2D-type and the rest is just smoke and mirrors.
The most inspiring movies and productions I've seen in recent times were the exact opposite. Very little money, but they had fantastic designs and outstanding stories.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Homeless is a little extreme but...

Homeless is a little extreme but...

depends on how one defines/looks at success ?

a friend i known since 1980 who has been making films since 1975 ... he hasn't made back any cost on any of them, none has been picked up , he's been homeless for the past 7-8 years , whatever $$ he makes from doing hard manual labor he put's into his projects (just about all projects have been shot & edited on 16mm film) ...his current Doc project was shot 16mm , it was transferred to tape last Feb ... he's learning FCP ... he's hoping to get a 60min rough edit by end of October and whole project finished by end of year ... he enters film festivals and has won some awards ... he considers himself a successful filmmaker ...

I had a friend who was a schoolteacher that did several microbudget shot on video features - investing 7 to 14K of his savings on features that weren't bad for the amount spent but that never went anywhere but a few film festivals.

I also have another schoolteacher friend that spent 10 to 20 days over the past 25 years (and probably 10k or more each year too on, boat, tackle, travel) per year standing in a fishing boat in northern minnesota casting for eight hours a day to catch maybe 30 or 40 muskies.

The filmmaker teacher friend also wrote about 200 songs, probably none of which were heard, except possibly in the school auditiorium.

And I can't sing for shite compared to a professional, but I still like to bang away on my Stratocaster and sing Sympathy for the Devil.

Homeless is a little extreme, but there is still something to be said for making the artistic attempt, if it isn't successful well maybe for them it is more enjoyable and makes more sense than playing golf.

 

[planet e]

it's all about perception.

is your camera an investment or is it a camera?

if your camera is an investment, then you think in terms of the probability of its success. the ROI.

if your camera is a camera, then you take it out and play with it and have fun and see the world transformed before you.

i am buying one of each. one that i believe will return itself financially to my business. and the other one is for me. no one else gets to touch it or play with it. mine mine all mine. if #1248 doesn't return a dime, but we have a great time together and make some pretty pictures, then i will sleep well at night.

but if #1008 doesn't pay for itself in a year or two, several times over, well then, ol' 1008 and i are going to have to sit down for a little chat.....

 

[mdo]

The odds are not really the issue. Good work will rise to the top. Not to sound like a cliche, but the fact is that you are in competition only with yourself. The only question is can you formulate a solid vision, and can you put that vision into reality?

The industry is starving for good work. Starving!! If that's the case, why does the industry leave so much fruit out on the vine? If you want to understand why the vast numbers of submissions don't go anywhere, just watch some of them.

The hurdle you have to overcome isn't the fact that there are hundreds of people to the left and right of you. It's the fact that making a film that nails all of the points required is damn tough.

Now, you can look at the "odds" and say, "what are the odds that I'm going to produce something that is suitable for distribution." But that's not really an odds matter either. It's a matter of how much time one spent studying the art and business of filmmaking or how much attention one paid to the fact that making a film isn't a matter of throwing an idea into the air, but more a matter of carefully crafting an idea to hit a bullseye.

The Red will handle one small, very important part of indy filmmaking. When you drag your camera out and shoot your shot, the technology that underlies it facilitates a workflow that will output product suitable for theatrical distribution. That doesn't mean the lighting, framing, scene blocking, acting, makeup, script, etc., etc. will. Just the technology.

This is no small component. Why go through all the work to produce a suitable film and lay it down to an inferior medium?

But the real challenge is the same challenge that has existed all along. Can you make a good film.

Again this is damn tough. But there is no answer to this question beyond simply jumping in and taking it on. Just work like a dog and don't ever assume you know anything for sure, always be willing to accept input, and figure out how to weed out the good info from the bad. Bring onto your team as many people with proven competence as you can. Hire a cinematographer unless you, yourself, are one. Get your script reviewed by competent professional script consultants and pay them. Learn about the industry and who is going to want to see your film and how much distributors are likely to pay for it. Treat it like a business and carefully fit your art into that business and you'll have the best shot at succeeding.

 

[krd]

Learn about the industry and who is going to want to see your film and how much distributors are likely to pay for it. Treat it like a business and carefully fit your art into that business and you'll have the best shot at succeeding.

Unfortunately, filmmakers or producers who approach the medium "like a business", but don't have the resources to compete with mainstream commercial cinema by hiring stars, etc., tend to lose every dime. They make under-budgeted movies with the usual commercial characteristics, but no commercial value. Audiences can get the real thing (from Hollywood), for exactly the same price. Why pay for the cheap imitation? Even worse are the Hollywood/indie hybrids, which are artifacts of the financing process, rather than a rational attempt, however flawed, to serve a market niche.

I count 14 or so filmmakers who, in the last 25 years, established varying careers for themselves with low budget, self-produced movies. Virtually none of those of efforts would have looked like a reasonable investment prospect. Some would have been downright insane, from an investors' or marketing perspective. And many of these films could have just as easily have disappeared without trace. There was nothing inevitable about these successes. Many of these successes are unaccountable, even after the fact.

Similarly, "quality" is a hopelessly loaded term in this business. Some of the finest "no-budget" American features have never been distributed, while people like Kevin Smith and Ed Burns, who no one would put in the Pantheon, have national reputations.

In a word, look for justice in this medium, and you'll go mad....

 

[mdo]

Unfortunately, filmmakers or producers who approach the medium "like a business", but don't have the resources to compete with mainstream commercial cinema by hiring stars, etc., tend to lose every dime. They make under-budgeted movies with the usual commercial characteristics, but no commercial value. Audiences can get the real thing (from Hollywood),for exactly the same price. Why pay for the cheap imitation? Even worse are the Hollywood/indie hybrids, which are artifacts of the financing process, rather than a rational attempt, however flawed, to serve a market niche. I count 14 or so filmmakers who, in the last 25 years, established varying careers for themselves with low budget, self-produced movies. Virtually none of those of efforts would have looked like a reasonable investment prospect. Some would have been downright insane, from an investors' or marketing perspective. And many of these films could have just as easily have disappeared without trace. There was nothing inevitable about these successes. Many of these successes are unaccountable, even after the fact.

You're acknowledging that it is possible to start a career with a low budget, self-produced film. That's great news!

Filmmakers get into their positions through a lot of different routes. Some start as actors. Some as writers. Some in TV. And some by just starting to make their own low-budget films. Dov Simens, who teaches first-time filmmakers, says if you want to get the money to make a $2 million film, make a $200K film. If you want to get the money to make a $200K film, make a $20K film. You've got to start somewhere. So if a person hasn't already connected as an actor or a writer, etc., why should the person assume that he cannot do it as a low-budget filmmaker?

Every investor on the planet knows that indy films are probably the worst form of investment. It is broadly, generally known that money put into an indy film is almost certainly lost.

The only relevant question is whether or not, by intelligent assessment of the circumstances, the chances of success can be improved. I believe that, for the most part, the failure of films is not a mystery and that studying the area and competently applying the data learned can be of enormous benefit.

So despite the fact that the challenges of indy filmmaking are great, it's possible to:

1. Establish that you can actually complete a film, and thereby start building your career.

2. Possibly hit a niche and produce a film like:

American Desi (2001), made for $250K and earned $903K at the boxoffice,
or:
Better Luck Tomorrow (2002), cost $250K and made $3.8M at bo,
or
Lovely & Amazing (2001), cost $250K and made $4.2M at the bo,
or
Tadpole (2002), cost $150K, made $2.9M at bo,

3. Or hit the jackpot with a film like:

Open Water (2003), cost $130K and made $30.5M at bo.

The point is that it CAN be done. And it's not a roll of the dice. The product that is produced is fully under one's control.

Similarly, "quality" is a hopelessly loaded term in this business. Some of the finest "no-budget" American features have never been distributed, while people like Kevin Smith and Ed Burns, who no one would put in the Pantheon, have national reputations.

In a word, look for justice in this medium, and you'll go mad....

There are reasons why films fail. Those reasons can be known. You're correct that they're not always related to the quality of the film. You can guarantee failure of a fantastic film, for example, by placing it on a shelf and telling no one about it. Or, if you make a fantastic film that no one wants to see, there's not much you can do about it. That film is going to fail, even though its "quality" is excellent. Or it could be a great film that wasn't properly cleared, so that it's impossible to get errors and omissions insurance on it. Sorry, man, that film is dead. I find it very hard to believe that a quality film that fills an existing need and has no fatal flaws has been passed on by someone who could have used it.

I agree with you that justice may be hard to find in this business, but I think you're more likely to go mad by assuming that it's not attainable.

Mike

 

[krd]

Mike,

Nobody's denying that that low budget films can make money or lead to productive work, even if the budgets of most of the movies you cite are beyond the resources of most individuals, one of them ("Tadpole") featured a major star, and none succeeded because they were cinematic landmarks (putting it politely).

Clearly, there is no one answer, anything can happen (though we are talking about "probability" here!) and people who deserve "success", small or large, have been known to achieve it. But when you say

it's not a roll of the dice. The product that is produced is fully under one's control

my head goes into a loop. You may be right in a very limited sense, but there's so much else in the mix. For most serious filmmakers (real or just pretentious), the question is, do I have any hope of successfully realizing the film with my own money? If not, can I reasonably expect to find adequate financing, short of robbing a bank? If so, am I prepared to spend years looking for that financing? And, finally, if my film does get made, well or imperfectly with the resources at hand, what are its chances of getting distribution, paying back the investors or even receiving festival exposure?

"Fully under control" doesn't mean much, when these questions are in play, apart from trying to ensure that the project in question isn't fundamentally worthless from the start. But that question also runs in a circle: everyone thinks he's making a masterpiece with marvelous commercial prospects. Those of doubting temperaments tend not to make movies. And no one in this business has a proven record of predicting indie film success, including filmmakers who succeed once (but not twice).

Perhaps more to the point, if the process were as rational as you make out, Hollywood films would always make money -- the MBAs in the suites, with limitless market research, would never miscalculate. Instead, about 6% of feature film production pays for the remaining 94% of the failures.

Pre-judging the arthouse market, where films must have at least some non-commercial characteristics to succeed commercially, is even more difficult. Just look at the Sundance Dramatic Competition -- millions down the drain every year, and most of these film are "professionally" produced, by people who should know better (that they don't is a discussion for another day).

As for retaining one's sanity in the movie business -- I'd say that's a lost cause, whatever you do.

 

[mdo]

KRD:

Hollywood is made of dreams. What are the chances that a girl with no legs below the knee and only two fingers on each hand could become a concert pianist?

And yet this girl pulled it off:
http://dopejam.multiply.com/video/item/6

If she asked someone for the odds of succeeding, she would have heard a far more depressing reality check than has been presented in this thread.

I don't disagree with anything that you have said, with the exception of the idea that competition has any bearing on success as an independent filmmaker. It's not competition. It's whether or not you can produce a great flick. I know your earlier post indicted that you regard Ed Burns as somewhat less than a stellar filmmaker, but his Brothers McMullen cost $23K and made $10 million. If a filmmaker can't afford at least something close to $23,000, then I agree with you, it may simply be impossible to make a decent film. But the mystery of the success and failure of film has more to do with talent than anything else, which is why, by the way, the suits that hold the purse strings misfire so often. Their talents lie in other areas than the art of filmmaking. Another reason for misfiring on big budget films is committees making decisions -- the zebra, of course, is a horse designed by a committee.

I just don't buy the idea that because so many other people make mistakes in this area a person should consider that it tells him anything at all about himself. The high failure rate simply provides a powerful caution that a lot of people who thought they had done enough work actually had not. So a new filmmaker who thinks he's got all the bases covered would do well to humbly retrace his steps and see where he can improve the product. The numbers tell us that almost certainly, when you think you're done, you're not. When you think your product is ready, it isn't yet. When you think you have all the creative talent you need on your project, you probably don't.

A story that thrills audiences features a person who rises above insurmountable odds to do something amazing and wonderful. That's the story of low-budget filmmaking.

We may never come fully to an agreement because we're both correct in the details, we just have a different view on them.

The thread was started with a question about the odds.

The answer is that if one decides on the basis of the odds, he will not go into low-budget filmmaking.

If he decides on the basis of his own stubborn bull-headedness and determination and confidence in his own ability, he might.

At that point, all we can say is, "We wish you success."

 

[M Most]

Dov Simens, who teaches first-time filmmakers, says if you want to get the money to make a $2 million film, make a $200K film.

I'm all for dreams, however......

Dov Simens has never, to my knowledge, actually made any film, be it for $2, $200k, or $2 million. You can say anything and get paid for it if for some reason people believe you, even if you have no record of actual accomplishment, and even if what you say has been proven wrong over and over again. Just ask Dick Cheney. I'm not necessarily comparing Dov to Dick Cheney. I'm just sayin....

 

[krd]

MDO,

We could go on forever, which is pointless, but I'll take you up on one matter, which indicates how deeply the mythology can run in this business.

The Brothers McMullen. First of it all, it wasn't made for $23K. Burns sent a rough cut to Sundance, which accepted it. That, in turn, lead Good Machine (James Schamus/Ted Hope) to oversee post-production and take producing credits, with money from Fox Searchlight. So we're already closer to $100K (and maybe more), and professional support, and professional promotion at Sundance, before we even contemplate a commercial release.

Second: it was a major miracle that Burns not only got into Sundance, but won the prize. It happens, but that expectation is no basis for a rational business plan, as you advocate. Today, the film would almost certainly end up in the reject pile.

Third: the film grossed around $10 million, but it was Fox Searchlight's first acquisition and the company wanted a success. Word on the street is, Fox Searchlight spent about $10 million on marketing, which is plausible. The film was highly promoted -- lack of which tends to doom indie efforts (they last one weekend).

Fourth: Burns clearly doesn't have any particular understanding of indie film, because he's bombed ever since. If he had wisdom, it's long gone now. This doesn't say much for the "rational approach" argument.

If all this sounds like a brief for despair, it isn't. Anyone who wants to make films should, and all the rest be damned. You may get lucky like Ed Burns, or succeed one way or another thanks to the excellence of your film. But that doesn't mean we have to ignore the realities of the business.

 

[Sean]

This link to an article on the making of Greg Araki's, Robert Rodriguez's and Nick Gomez's ultra-low-budget films:

http://www.nextwavefilms.com/moviemaking/abc.html

I would actually turn the whole premise of this thread on its head: the probability of failure might be close to 0% if you're actually really talented. I mean, think about it. Turn back the clock and put Quentin Tarantino somewhere in Missouri and give him a Red Camera. I just don't think there'd be any doubt he'd make a film that would get noticed. He's got it. And as long as he didn't get hit by a bus, he was going to make it happen eventually. It might not have been on the same scale, or as quickly, but his talent would have shone through no matter what. If someone doesn't have the talent, then their chances for failure are greatly increased (but never 100%).

 

[donatello b]

"The Brothers McMullen. First of it all, it wasn't made for $23K. Burns sent a rough cut to Sundance, which accepted it. That, in turn, lead Good Machine (James Schamus/Ted Hope) to oversee post-production, and take producing credits, with money from Fox Searchlight. "

the POINT is he spend 23k then the project was picked up and if FOX spent $1 or 50mil to get it released isn't the point - 23k out of ED's pocket ....he got a picture deal with Fox for next film ...

"Today, the film would almost certainly end up in the reject pile."

i don't think so, it might not WIN.. i don't think it would go into reject pile ...

"Fourth: Burns clearly doesn't have any particular understanding of indie film, because he's bombed ever since"

how does one measure success or bomb ?
he's done very well financially and he's still producing and directing ... so i'm not seeing the Ed "bomb" ...

the realities of the business is they don't really care if a movie is good or bad - bottom line is can they make $$ off your project ( not break even or make a little $) ... so you can either make a movie that you think will make big $$ or you make films the way you want ... either way they may never see the big or small screen ...

 

[krd]

I would actually turn the whole premise of this thread on its head: the probability of failure might be close to 0% if you're actually really talented. I mean, think about it. Turn back the clock and put Quentin Tarantino somewhere in Missouri and give him a Red Camera. I just don't think there'd be any doubt he'd make a film that would get noticed.

I believe Q.T. did do some 16mm stuff -- and it was pretty terrible, by his own account. Have you ever tried to direct unskilled or inexperienced actors, particularly with extended dialogue scenes? That's what Q.T. would have had in Missouri (or southern California, for matter, on a very low budget). By contrast, Reservoir Dogs had capable stars and plausible production values, and Pulp Fiction was a studio picture (albeit a "cheap" one), with even bigger stars and better production values. We can't know what these films would have looked and sounded like if he had made them for $23K, but I can guess.... It likely wouldn't be pretty.

That aside, any number of filmmakers have made promising feature films, and still disappeared. It's easier than you think to sink without trace.

Donatello -- you're right that for $23k Ed Burns hit the jackpot, which is all that matters, but it was a one in a million occurrence, would almost certainly not happen today, the thing didn't actually make money for the distributor, and none of this good fortune hit Ed Burns because he made a great film. If miracles like that are necessary, then the business is even more hopeless than I'm contending here.

In the sense that Ed Burns continues to get his films financed, you're right again: he's a success. But that only shows how irrational the business of film financing is. He gets money because he's a minor celebrity and his name has commercial value. The movies he proposes to make are largely irrelevant to his investors.

But, in the end, who cares? This is all talk, nothing more. You live an individual life, not a statistical one. If you want to make that movie, make that movie. If you fail, it won't kill you.

 

[mdo]

I'm all for dreams, however......

Dov Simens has never, to my knowledge, actually made any film, be it for $2, $200k, or $2 million. You can say anything and get paid for it if for some reason people believe you, even if you have no record of actual accomplishment, and even if what you say has been proven wrong over and over again. Just ask Dick Cheney. I'm not necessarily comparing Dov to Dick Cheney. I'm just sayin....

Dov Simens has stated that he has made several dozen films in the role of production manager and other roles dealing with finance and other functions unrelated to the creative aspects. He has also stated that he is recognized as a bondable production manager for purposes of obtaining a completion bond. I have no reason to doubt what he has said. If there is information to the contrary that I should be aware of, definitely let me know.

Dov makes no bones about the fact that he has no talent on the creative end. He tried once and got nowhere. He only teaches the technology of completing a film, and he makes it clear that the talent of making a good film he must leave in the hands of the filmmaker.

However, there is a considerable body of knowledge involved in successfully completing a film, and that is the valuable contribution he has to offer. From that perspective, my impression is that he's got real-world experience that would give him an insight into how making a film in one budget range can be of benefit toward obtaining a larger budget.

Does what he said conflict with what you've seen?

 

[mdo]

But, in the end, who cares? This is all talk, nothing more. You live an individual life, not a statistical one. If you want to make that movie, make that movie. If you fail, it won't kill you.

Right on. That gives it the proper perspective.

 

[mdo]

This link to an article on the making of Greg Araki's, Robert Rodriguez's and Nick Gomez's ultra-low-budget films:

http://www.nextwavefilms.com/moviemaking/abc.html

I would actually turn the whole premise of this thread on its head: the probability of failure might be close to 0% if you're actually really talented. I mean, think about it. Turn back the clock and put Quentin Tarantino somewhere in Missouri and give him a Red Camera. I just don't think there'd be any doubt he'd make a film that would get noticed. He's got it. And as long as he didn't get hit by a bus, he was going to make it happen eventually. It might not have been on the same scale, or as quickly, but his talent would have shone through no matter what. If someone doesn't have the talent, then their chances for failure are greatly increased (but never 100%).

Thanks, Sean! I hadn't seen the article. Great link.

Good point on Tarantino. It definitely would be hard to imagine his work not getting noticed eventually, no matter where he might have started from.

 

[Sean]

I believe Q.T. did do some 16mm stuff -- and it was pretty terrible, by his own account. Have you ever tried to direct unskilled or inexperienced actors, particularly with extended dialogue scenes? That's what Q.T. would have had in Missouri (or southern California, for matter, on a very low budget). By contrast, Reservoir Dogs had capable stars and plausible production values, and Pulp Fiction was a studio picture (albeit a "cheap" one), with even bigger stars and better production values.

I dunno. I haven't seen his 16mm films. But I bet they're more interesting than most first efforts. But I don't agree that he'd be stuck with crap actors and that would ruin his movie in Missouri. Many directors like to work exclusively with non-actors and manage to get wonderful performances. Again, that's where talent comes in. (Maybe anyone can direct the likes of Jack Nickolson.) And I'm one of the people who really loved Soderbergh's "Bubble." The three leads had never acted before. They were all cast from the one small town in which the movie was shot, and the protagonist had to book time off Kentucky Fried Chicken to be available for the shoot.